VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. The subject suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking the reliefs of injunction, rendition of accounts, etc. with respect to two trade marks namely PARAMAX and PANAMAX which are stated to be used by the plaintiffs for paracetamol tablets. The defendants are stated to be using the mark ‘Effer-PARAMAX’ for dissolvable paracetamol tablets.

2. The suit so far as the reliefs qua the trade mark PANAMAX is concerned is based on the registration of the trade mark in India. The registration certificate has been filed and proved on record as Ex.PW1/2. So far as the relief qua the trade mark PARAMAX is concerned, the suit is based on the ground of passing off inasmuch as there is no registration of the said trade mark in India.

3. Defendants initially appeared and filed a joint written statement. They thereafter stopped appearing and were proceeded exparte. The defendants were restrained by the exparte order dated 28.5.2003 from manufacturing and selling paracetamol tablets under the trademarks of the plaintiffs and which order has been confirmed. The defendants it appears have thus stopped manufacturing and selling and may be therefore not interested in contesting the suit.

4. The following issues were framed in this case on 02.02.2006:

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is prior adopted user and registered owner of the trademark ‘Panamax’and ‘Paramax’? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is the copyright owner for the Swirl device adopted for ‘Crocin’ tablets and syrup? OPP

(iii) Whether by adoption of trade mark ‘Paramax’ in respect of identical goods by the defendants amounts to infringement of plaintiff’s mark ‘Panamax’? OPP

(iv) Whether the defendants have infringed the copyright of plaintiff by substantially reproducing the ‘Swirl device of the plaintiff? OPP

(v) Whether the defendant is honest user of trade mark “Effer Paramax’? OPD

(vi) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction? OPD

(vii) Whether the plaint is not properly instituted, signed and verified by the authorized person? OPD

(viii) Whether the present suit is liable to the dismissed for no cause of action? OPD

(ix) Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder/misjoinder of parties? OPD

(x) Whether the defendants have passed off their goods as that of the plaintiff? OPP

(xi) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any relief as prayed in paragraph 25 of the plaint? OPP

(xii) Relief.”

5. It is settled law that in order to establish the entitlement of a person to the reliefs of infringement or passing off, it is necessary that although the defendants are exparte plaintiffs must also prove their case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja & Anr. vs. Sunil Madan, 1999 (8) SCC 396 that even where there is no defence of a defendant, and the facts as stated in the plaint are such that the same required to be proved, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to a judgment unless the plaintiff proves his/its case. Paras 42 and 45 of the said judgment are relevant and are reproduced below:-

“42. Judgment" as defined in Section 2(9) of the CPC means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20, Rule 4(2) which says that a judgment: "shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment.

45. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the provisions of Order 20, Rule 1(2) would apply only to contested cases as it is only in those cases that "the points for determination" as mentioned in this Rule will have to be indicated, an